Thread

You can’t be a Standardista if you don’t validate your own code, and depending on the circumstances the code of others. 😉
Some code is so bad it’s just funny, so it’s good for a laugh, some of it mechanically generated by other Content-management-systems. I’m talking up to a thousand or more errors, with nested div’s scrolling clear out of site. You can only try and enlighten so many people as to quality code standards. IF there is a bug that the validator catches, it’s easy to suggest a fix, possibly helpful. I can appreciate the fact suggested that it could be considered rude, point taken here.

Jeff Croft is a well recognizable name in relation to CSS/HTML.  Of course he is going to get people who are going to look at work he has done and point out flaws.  Understandably, this could get real old real quick.

Validating your code is a good idea, but pointing out non-validation on other people’s site without soliciting a review is the height of rudeness. I agree with Jeff, keep it to yourself. Standards are guidelines, follow the spirit of the law, the letter isn’t that important.

Validating your code is a good idea, but pointing out non-validation on other people’s site without soliciting a review is the height of rudeness. I agree with Jeff, keep it to yourself. Standards are guidelines, follow the spirit of the law, the letter isn’t that important.

I also have to echo that sentiment.  Valid markup, I feel, isn’t necessarily a mark of quality though might be a very strong indicator of it.  It’s very presumptive of me to say this but I find there to be a strong coorelation between validation and well-made sites.

If I come across a site that has validation errors all over the place, using deprecated syntax etc… I can make some fairly accurate assumptions about the person who coded it and what their knowledge level of HTML/CSS might be.

I counter all this markup and quality nonsense with Warren’s little pet project. I sent Warren a long email about how crappy his site is, the ugliness of the markup, the old out-dated methods used (PageMill, really!), and how he’ll never make any money from this business. He hasn’t written back yet. He’s probably filing for bankruptcy due to his out-dated website.

Oh, that Warren!
Now there’s a guy that could sure use an EE license!

That’s a different kind of CSS naked right there. 😉
The page is probably so old CSS hadn’t been invented then huh…

I have a new favorite website, I love it!

WOW. This is so great on many levels. PageMill – what a blast from the past! I love the ads for Geico and Borsheims too. As far as websites reflecting the companies they represent, this is as good as it gets. Only a man without a cell phone in 2008 could be behind an operation like that. Warren Buffet is the man.

“I am not buying from this site if it doesn’t validate”
you will never hear this from avg. visitor so who are you/we trying to impress?
Are your tires on your car evenly inflated?

In my mind, validation is a tool, something to strive for but but not to die for. It only really matters in your (our) mind.

Personally, I am tired of anorexic websites holding onto their validation flag…a logo and 3 lines of text…please. “I am so thin and beautiful and load fast”...great, how about something to read? Get over it and have a nice meal behind the table. :lol: ok I could not resist….

On somewhat serious note, webdev is long gone as a programmers world, but a mix people who want to use this medium to express and create. If having a glowing green color as background is their ‘art’ let them have it. If someone has made a site usng M$ Word and this is their first attempt then encourage them instead of hurting them with validation bible.

@Leslie, I don’t think that Warren is going to respond:

If you have any comments about our WEB page, you can either write us at the address shown above or e-mail us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). However, due to the limited number of personnel in our corporate office, we are unable to provide a direct response.

I love their statement…LOL.

Lastly, if we all followed the standards…what a an ugly and boring place this world would be.
ok, now I run dodging your stones!

Les, nice extreme example. Buffet doesn’t even need a website 😉

so who are you/we trying to impress?

Me, it’s called pride.

a mix people who want to use this medium to express and create

I don’t think we expect the average joe blow personal site to be anything near a coding nirvana. I think we’re talking more about sites developed by those selling themselves as web professionals. I don’t have my neighbor fill a tooth just because he has a drill and I wouldn’t go to a dentist if his skill and equipment wasn’t up to date.

validation flag…a logo and 3 lines of text…please - - Lastly, if we all followed the standards…what a an ugly and boring place this world would be.

Seems you believe one can only do simple sites and validate. Not true, you could probably code any of the cssGarden sites (a wide variety) to be standards compliant. In fact, I can’t think of too many sites one couldn’t do with validated code.

ok, now I run dodging your stones!

As well you should.

We could argue this all day…and have in other threads…I’m out of this one 😊

Me, it’s called pride.

Spoken like a true programmer :D
...and seems like we agree…

In my mind, validation is a tool, something to strive for but but not to die for. It only really matters in your (our) mind.

Now, from perpective of client or as a potential client:

I would still go for functional & accessble vs. validated.
If designer is going to charge me 30hrs more because they were going for validation then no thanks, same goes for the dentist…if I am payng for location of his office…no thanks, just good quality of filling please.

Obviosly, this community is full of tealented people and I love browsing the pro network and adding you to my bookmarks.
If I am going to hire a web desinger then sure validation would be one of those things I would look for on their work but would not immediately consider them as ‘skilled’. It is a (at best) a bullet point on a resume and located pretty low…somewhere under “other skills or hobbies”.

This designer I hired puts on validation badge…my reaction…“great, whatever…now show me what this ‘validation’ you speak of does for me?”. Chances are the answer will start with “well, nothing really…but but but..nice code…”....“yeah, ok going back to what this site will do for me.”

Any time designer tells me they are going to hand me a project with ‘nice code for anyone else to look at’ I take it as indicator that they don’t want to be arround after the project and hoping someone else will take over it. So, pretty code as a badge of skills backfires….
Talking to graphics/print designers (not web) and see how willing they are to give up their print work in order for you to produce a valid representation of their work.They could care less, just don’t butcher my design. <- good luck with crossbrowser-css hacks.
“Style/skin changers” = overdesigned and undecisive designer….etc.etc..two sides to each coin and they don’t allways shine the same.

Don’t get me wrong, I am just sharing a perspective from one of the potential clients 😊 and being a total devli’s advocate. All this is a hobby to me but I do apprechaite the opposite from spaggetti code but not Just for the sake of something I will never see.
I know more rocks to come my way…or more clients like this you will meet.
For what is worth…
All the best!

As one who makes a living doing this, validation is important. It doesn’t cost the client more, and in fact likey less as I don’t have to figure out why it doesn’t show properly in “x” browser.

Starting with an error free template and css file is most of the battle, then knowing good code makes for valid error free sites without a big time investment.

This is not saying it’s everything, but it is an important part of good practices.
.

I would still go for functional & accessble vs. validated.

I’m not sure that any of these are mutually exclusive.  Non-valid markup that breaks a site is neither functional or accessible.  I agree that validation is a tool in a web developer’s arsenal but it’s an essential one.  How about a validated, functional and acccessible web experience?  Why do we have to choose one aspect over the other?

Small things like the “target” atrribute being deprecated in Strict DTD’s doesn’t bother me.  But when it relates to proper rendering of a webpage across different browsers, I don’t think it’s something that can be overlooked.

Validation is a great way of encouraging functional and accessible. I’m hardcore behind web standards, but a little boo boo here and there isn’t the end of the world. Sometimes plugins/APIs combined with tight timelines and budgets means taking a loss and moving on.

My beef is with throwing it in people’s face like “gotcha.” Most of the time, they are preaching to the choir. Do these folks really think that bitching to Jeff Croft is going to help web standards as a whole? He and his ilk are the last people to complain to. Go tell the guy in your IT dept that there is a way to make his life easier, not whine in blog comments. It reeks of jealousy and anal-retentiveness.

Thanks VB and trif,
This definitely is an open ended question, and yes deep down I agree, validation is a root of a good structure…although old, but never the less, here is a nice article talking about customers and their perspectives on validation. Thought it was a good link to share and that some of the pros here can recognise perhaps similar experiences. Thanks for letting me be part of this discussion!
All the best!